MALCOLM HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROMENITA HARRIS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Court reversed a lump sum alimony award giving the wife the husband's interest in the marital home because the wife had superior earning capacity and benefits, making the award inequitable.
A lump sum alimony award transferring the husband's interest in the marital home to the wife is reversed where the wife has steady employment with superior earnings and benefits while the husband has no appreciable assets.
[1] A lump sum alimony award consisting of the marital home should not be awarded to a spouse with superior earning capacity, steady employment, and pension benefits when the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce proceeding, the trial court awarded the wife a lump sum alimony payment consisting of the husband's interest in the marital home, the onl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse a lump sum alimony award which gave to a wife the husband’s interest in the marital home (the only substantial asset of the parties) upon the following authority. Rico v. Rico, 487 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Bullard v. Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Gorman v. Gorman, 400 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Baker v. Baker, 388 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The record reveals that the wife has steady employment, earning more than the husband with insurance and pension benefits, etc., while the husband has no appreciable assets and earns a living from various jobs while pursuing his profession as a minister. This is not a case of disproportionate earning capacity or assets. Vawter v. Vawter, 419 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Villano v. Villano, 408 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hurtado v. Hurtado, 407 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
We return the matter to the trial court with directions to permit the wife to continue to occupy the home pending the youngest child of the parties reaching majority and to make appropriate rulings relative to the husband’s responsibility for his share of the mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc., some of which payments may or may not be credited to the husband’s account in the discretion of the trial court. Hiler v. Hiler, supra; Bullard v. Bullard, supra.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blue Satanonchai v. Amparo Satanonchai, 522 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. As in Harris v. Harris, 498 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), Rico v. Rico, 487 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), the effect of awarding the marital home— the parties’ sole asset — to the wife as lump sum alimony was to force the husband…
-
Mayers v. Mayers, 575 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…f the marital assets in accordance with the following authority. See Renzer v. Renzer, 553 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Zachary v. Zachary, 551 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Clemson v. Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Harris v. Harris, 498 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So. 2d 373 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989). , Reversed and remanded with directions.…
-
Cobb v. Edythe Cobb, 538 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…l as to the pension’s value; clearly, this was an insufficient evidentiary showing. This being so, the lump sum alimony award was arbitrary and must be reversed. Satanonchai v. Satanonchai, 522 So. 2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Harris v. Harris, 498 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bullard v. Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Pike v. Pike, 332 So. 2d 147, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Second, the child support award cannot stand because (a) no evidence was adduced below to establish the needs o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gorman v. Gorman, 400 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Hurtado v. Rose-Jean Hurtado, 407 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- RICO v. Rosario RICO, 487 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Bullard v. Altha Elaine Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Baker v. Anne Timmons Baker, 388 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Vawter v. Vawter, 419 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Villano v. Villano, 408 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)